If I Picked the Winners: Best Actor 2006

     The good, the bad, and the mediocre: that's what you get with the Oscars, and this week, we'll be highlighting the latter of the three with Best Actor 2006. Up to this point, I've tried to pick Oscar categories that included at least some nominees that I had a passionate opinion on (whether it be positive or negative), but this week, I thought I would highlight indifference incarnate, blase personified, mediocrity embodied. Now of course, these adjectives won't apply to this article, which (as always), will be peerless, but rather the lineup of candidates that made up the Academy's Best Actor race of 2006. Whether in writing or in thought, it is actually an extremely useful exercise to analyze the middle of the road fair, for when we understand what separates the average from the excellent, we have a better understanding of the things that truly touch us, make us move as human beings. If "it's all relative," then we sure as hell better know relative to what, and this week we will discussing the what.

     Now as critics of the Academy (and who isn't), the question arises, was 2006 just a middling year for lead actors, or did the Academy, yet again, skip over superior work for more comfortable choices conforming to their typical patterns of familiarity? While maybe not the most stirring year for male lead performances, like almost any year, 2006 did have some above-par turns, but a typical Oscar nemesis reared its ugly head, preventing meritocracy from ruling the day: the ensemble film. I don't know what it is about film's with great ensemble casts that prevent the Academy from rewarding their individual actors (category confusion, cast cancellation?), but with a few exceptions (such as the first two "Godfather" films), multiple cast members from the same film are rarely nominated, no matter how deserving they all are. For 2006, the biggest example of a wronged actor is actually one of the nominees (which was undoubtedly part of the problem), Leonardo DiCaprio. As you will see momentarily (if you did not already know), DiCaprio was nominated for Best Actor in 2006, but not for his career's best work as an undercover Boston policeman in Martin Scorsese's "The Departed", but rather for his underwhelming role as a mercenary involved with the African conflict diamonds trade in "Blood Diamond". How DiCaprio did not win, much less get nominated, for "The Departed" is a mystery that only people in Hollywood know the answer to. It may have something to do with the fact that DiCaprio's costar in "The Departed", Matt Damon, was also likely eligible for the lead category, and likewise gave one of his all-time best performances. As some sort of stupid compromise, instead of doing the right thing by nominating them both, some in the Academy may have decided to throw their weight behind DiCaprio's sub-par "Blood Diamond" performance. It doesn't make sense, but it's the type of reasoning the Academy seems to employ all too often.

     Another wonderful performance from a great ensemble film that was deserving of a nomination was Greg Kinnear as an aspiring motivational speaker in 2006's "Little Miss Sunshine". Again, I'm not sure of which category most people placed him in, but as the dad of "Little Miss Sunshine" herself, if he is not considered lead, then I guess everyone in the film is "supporting". Another worthy, but categorically questionable, performance is that of Michael Sheen as former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in "The Queen". It's one of the best portrayals of a modern political figure that I can remember (and one Sheen has done three times), but whether it should qualify as a lead performance is tough to say. Finally, one last performance that isn't spellbinding, but a step ahead of some of the competition, is Ryan Phillippe as John Bradley, in Clint Eastwood's "Flags of our Fathers", the story of the men who were forever engraved in American consciousness after their picture was snapped raising the American flag over Iwo Jima. For now though, let us take a look at the group of so-so nominees.

News: Cannes Film Festival Hands Out Its Honors

     Over the last ten days or so, the world's most prestigious film festival, the Cannes film festival, has been going on in France. Today though, the festival, which had a fair amount of big name premieres this year, as well as some unwanted media attention for controversial Danish filmmaker Lars von Trier scandalous "I am a Nazi" comments (for which he was banned from ever attending the festival again), wrapped up with its traditional end-of-festival awards. The way the festival awards films is it places them in different categories of competition, with the films considered to be in the "major leagues" put in the Palme d'Or competition, and it has a selected jury watch every eligible film. After seeing each of the films in competition, the jury (which this year was headed up by Robert De Niro) argues with one another until they decide in which films receive which awards.

     So then, who was this year's big winner? Terrence Malick's highly anticipated "The Tree of Life", which releases world wide this Friday, took the festival's top prize, the Palme d'Or. The film, which stars Brad Pitt and Sean Penn, actually received mix scores from the reviewers at the festival, but it apparently hit a cord with the jurors. Being an American film with big name actors and a highly acclaimed director, this is also a film to watch at the end of the year for the Oscars, but the crossover between Palme d'Or and Oscar Best Picture is small. In fact, it has only happened once, in 1955, when a film originally meant for television, "Marty", miraculously took both highly regarded top prizes. A few other Palme d'Or winners have managed to do pretty well at the Oscar's, with Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" being the most famous, but no others have managed to win both, so it's hard to say how this affects "The Tree of Life"'s overall Oscar potential.

     Some of the other big winners of the festival include Danish filmmaker Nicolas Winding Refn, who picked Best Director for his action/"B"-movie homage flick, "Drive". The film stars Ryan Gosling, along with a lot of other fairly big names, and probably would have been the general consensus Palme d'Or winner had the critics been allowed to decide. Personally, I have not seen any of Mr. Refn's previous films, but from the description of the film and its rave reviews, this is now one film that is high atop my anticipated list. Another big winner was Jean Dujardin, who picked up the Best Actor award for "The Artist". Yet another film earning high marks, "The Artist" is a black-and-white film about the tail end of the silent-age of cinema, which the film itself is almost completely done in pantomime. Even before the film debuted in Cannes, the Weinstein's picked it up for U.S. distribution, which given their track record (this was the team behind last year's "The King's Speech" victory), may make this a end of the year awards season player. Finally, the jury, maybe in a rebellious stand for the right of freedom of expression, were not too scared off by von Trier's unfortunate remarks to award the film any prizes, giving it's Best Actress to Kirsten Dunst in "Melancholia". Given the Academy's general xenophobia, it's hard to say that (even with the good reviews) any of these three films will end up to be Oscar contenders when all is said and done. It's true that all three films are not in foreign languages ("Drive" and "Melancholia" are in English, and "The Artist", being a silent film, is not in any language at all), but unless these films get a lot of critical backing consistently throughout the year, I have a hard time imaging any one of them beating out any of the big-shot movies such as, say, "The Tree of Life". The good news though is just how many well-received films there were at this year's festival. Compared to last year, where the main word critics used to sum up the festival was "underwhelmed", this year looks to be a much more promising year for unique, groundbreaking cinema.

     For the curious, the complete list of this year's winners is given below.

Palme d'Or: "The Tree of Life"
Grand Prix (aka Runner-up): (tie) "The Kid With a Bike" and "Once Upon a Time in Anatolia
Best Director: Nicholas Winding Refn for "Drive"
Best Actor: Jean Dujardin for "The Artist"
Best Actress: Kirsten Dunst for "Melancholia"
Best Screenplay: Joseph Cedar for "Footnote"
Prix du Jury: "Polisse"

Camera d'Or: "Las Acacias"
Palme d'Or (Short Film): "Cross Country"

If I Picked the Winners: Best Picture 1967

     A few week's back, I used this weekly column to discuss the Best Actor race of 1967. It was a fine category that included some of the all-time great cinematic thespians giving some of their finest performances (such as Spencer Tracy, Paul Newman, and Dustin Hoffman) and in the article, I expressed my great love for the year (in terms of cinema) in general. Now I'm not a wine connoisseur by any stretch of the imagination (I've never found a wine that compelled me to take more than a few sips before I quickly tired of the taste), so I never really understood what wine enthusiasts mean when they call some particular year a "good year". Is it just a catch phrase they brandish to illustrate their supposed vast intelligence and expertise on the matter? Like some sort of wino's credentials to prove your worthy of being in the club (the coldness of the top wine aficionados is reminiscent of how Nazi elites would plainly ask to "see your papers"). Or, at least for some, is there real meaning in that phrase? For instance, maybe a certain year had greater precipitation than most, and that lead to a larger mean grape size, which somehow creates a more alluring taste. Like I said, I know next to nothing about wine, so I'm totally spitballing here, but I do know a little bit about cinema, and I can vouch that 1967 was indeed a vintage year.

     This is why, merely a few weeks later, I'm already back. There is something about 1967 that just won't let go of it's hold. My hypothesis to the siren-like spell 1967 has over me is just the pure excitement that can be sensed in films from the year. As you may have heard me express before, the 1950's was an abysmal decade for the advancement of film as an art. While, as always, their are exceptions, in general, the films of 1950's gave in to every negative impulse of drama. Maybe in a vain attempt to differentiate itself from the incoming threat of television, the auteur's answer to everything in the 1950's was apparently, "Let's make it bigger". The "issues" were bigger, the "emotions" were bigger, the "realism" was bigger, and sometimes the screen was just literally larger, but whatever the case, like a man with a bruised ego, it was all hot air. The only cinematic neophytes of the era who were able to cut through the hyperbole and find something meaningful were the actors James Dean and Marlon Brando, the former who would not survive the excesses of the era, and the latter who would only be able to cover up serious emotional problems (including a massive eating disorder) for about the span of the decade. By the early 1960's, the first signs of a new understanding of what cinema was and could be began to emerge, but all too commonly the films were dragged down by the left over traditions of the previous era. It was finally in 1967 though, that the break became clear. A new generation was in town and they were not at all satisfied with the way things had been. This new generation would go on to create the greatest decade in cinema history, 1970's, but it was in its roots, 1967, that you find the most excitement. The new auteurs were still honing their craft, but what they lacked in polish they made up for with an abundance of passion. This emotional devotion to creation is palpable, which is why 1967 is the brilliant year that it is.

     For the most part, though probablY filled with old-timers of the Hollywood of yesteryear, the Academy did a decent job recognizing the films of the new generation. The largest glaring omission, and the film that is actually my favorite of the year (it ranked in at #5 in my all-time list), is "Cool Hand Luke". The film and the character "Cool Hand Luke" is one of the coolest creations in film history, the ultimate rebel (a much less self-aware version of " A Rebel Without a Cause"), a true existential warrior. How the Academy passed over the film, especially in favor of one miserable film I will be discussing briefly, is a mystery that I frankly don't want to uncover (or to be fair to the Academy, they did honor the film in a number of other areas). Another great American film that should have received consideration for the top prize is "The Dirty Dozen", a fun "group of men on a mission" movie that would later influence such great work as Quentin Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds". Finally, there are two films from around the era whose eligibility is questionable. The first is Sergio Leone's "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly". The film was first released in 1966, but did not receive an American release until 1967, so I don't know what year the Academy considered it eligible. Which ever year it fell under the proper eligibility though, it should have been nominated. Finally, the last case is "The Battle of Algiers", which is a strange case indeed. First released internationally in 1966, and receiving an Oscar nomination for Best Foreign Film in that year, the film would not receive an American release until 1967. However, somehow the film managed to receive Oscar nominations for Best Director and Screenplay in 1968, hopping over 1967. Had it been eligible though, it too should have absolutely been included into the list of the year's five best films. Now though, it's on to the actual nominees.

News: Spielberg's "The Adventures of Tintin" Teaser Trailer

     If you read my article "Top 10 of 2010 and Top 5 Anticipated of 2011", then you know I am very much looking forward to Steven Spielberg's newest film, "The Adventures of Tintin", which is why I'm so happy to see the film's first teaser trailer. Based on a comic book series, the movie uses motion capture technology (something I'm usually not a fan of, but looks decent enough in the trailer below) to tell it's adventurous tale of mystery and lore. Along with Spielberg at the helm, who has obviously mastered some of the greatest achievements in cinema history (even if his last film, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", was a rather dismal effort), part of the reason I am so excited for the film is it also boasts Edgar Wright (whose three films "Shaun of the Dead", "Hot Fuzz", and "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" have all been incredibly well written and directed) as a co-writer. The film also includes the voice work talent of Wright regulars Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, as well as Jaime Bell, Daniel Craig, and Andy Serkis. So as we wait for its Christmas release, check out the cool looking trailer below.

If I Picked the Winners: Best Actor 1935

     In this week's addition of "If I Picked the Winners", I thought I would go back into the furthest possible catacombs of Oscar history that I have fully explored, which happened to be Best Actor 1935. Now as much as I may be tempted to inflate my own cultural prowess by playing up the fact that I have seen all the nominated films in an Oscar category that took place a full 52 years before I was born, I feel obligated to point out that to the complete viewing of the filmography of Best Actor 1935 consists of watching all of two films. That's right, only two films are nominated in the four alloted slots the Academy gave to the category in 1935, and if you're an "old movie" buff such as my self, both films are relatively famous, so their viewing is expected and not something to point out proudly, like some difficult merit badge.

     The two films in question are 1935's Academy Award-winning Best Picture, Frank Lloyd's "Mutiny on the Bounty", which had an amazing three out of the four nominations, a feat that has rarely been repeated in an acting category (never again in Best Actor, and "The Godfather" and "The Godfather Part II" in Best Supporting Actor are the only other times I can think of off the top of my head), and John Ford's "The Informer". Both film's are considered classics of the era (an appraisal that I would whole heartedly agree with the former, but not quite the latter), and any frequent viewers of Turner Classic Movies (TCM) are likely to have at least caught a glimpse of the films at one point or another. Both films have had a lasting impact on cinema, as proved by the remaking of "Mutiny on the Bounty" in 1962 with Marlon Brando as the star (supposedly much inferior to the original, but since I haven't seen it I can render no judgement), and for "The Informer", influence on auteurs of later generations, such as Martin Scorsese who included a cameo appearance of the film in his only Best Picture winner, "The Departed" (the film's famous last scene makes a brief appearance on a television screen).

     Despite my fondness for Depression-era cinema, I have seen disappointingly few films from 1935. The means the choice of viable alternatives is sparse, with the only possible worthy alternative I can think of being Groucho Marx in "A Night at the Opera" (sorry Errol Flynn in "Captain Blood", your acting, as as well as the movie, are overrated). On the plus side though, this allows us to more quickly get to the actual nominees, so let's do that.

If I Picked the Winners: Best Original Screenplay 2009

     As a sort of companion piece to last week's article, I thought this week I would look at the other side of the writing awards in 2009: Best Original Screenplay. As I've stated before, the Best Original Screenplay category is usually one that is open to cinema's more quirky films, including film's whose sole nomination comes from the category, while the Best Adapted Screenplay category is usually home to the more prestigious multi-nominated films. That's not to say this is always the case, as Best Original Screenplay usually has a few big players (proved by "The Hurt Locker"'s victory in 2009), but it is also the only category where you see movies such as 2004's "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" receive the official seal of approval from the Academy. The category then is commonly exciting (at least in terms of who gets nominated, not so much in who wins, which like most categories, is well-known going into the awards ceremony), because it is one of those rare categories that truly feels open. In this category, voters look beyond the obvious usual suspects and consider possibilities that would quickly be shot down in other categories. The result then is a category that quite often serves as a cinematic scouting report, highlighting up and coming writers and directors, such as in 2001, when both Christopher Nolan and Wes Anderson were nominated for the screenplays "Memento" and "The Royal Tenenbaums" respectively.

     As audience members, an original screenplay is exciting because we have no idea what to expect. Given trailers and genre conventions, going into the movie we may have some idea of what we're about to see (especially if the film relies so heavily on traditions and cliches to the point it is "original" in name only), but what is exciting about films with original screenplays is their high standard deviation (or high level of variation for those not up in their statistics) in terms of quality. You could get a "Sucker Punch" (which if you missed my low opinion of the film, you can catch up with by clicking here), or you could get an "Another Year" (which if you missed my high opinion of the film, you can catch up with by clicking here). It's the cinematic equivalent Russian Roulette.

     In my opinion, which I made clear last week, 2009 was a relatively good year for cinema, and this includes original screenplays. In fact, with one lone exception that I will be covering in a moment, the batch of nominees the Academy came up with is excellent. These were films that really pushed the genres they operated in to new directions, truly deserving of every sense of the word "original". The Academy's nominees were actually so good, that this week's list of ideal alternatives consists of one movie, but one that was definitely an unfortunate absence. The missing piece of the puzzle was Michael Haneke's "The White Ribbon", a relentlessly gothic German film dissecting the strict, repressed roots of the generation that would become the Nazi monsters of the 20th Century. Had the film been nominated, it would have been the third nominated film in the category to make my Top 100 list (the only three films from 2009 to make my list), but given the Academy's xenophobia, the fact "The White Ribbon" missed the cut comes as no surprise. Enough day dreaming though, let's get down to business.

News: Tarantino's Next Film Gets a Name and Plot

     Some exciting news today from my all-time favorite director: Quentin Tarantino. A few weeks back, we learned that he was writing his next movie and that it would be a Spaghetti Western, but that was about all we knew. Well  today, we now have a name: "Django Unchained". The name is a reference to a Spaghetti Western by Sergio Corbucci that is simply titled, "Django". The Corbucci film tells the story of a gunslinger who enters a town that is being torn apart by two warring factions, the KKK and Mexican bandits. Just like Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds" was not a direct remake of Enzo Castellari's "The Inglorious Bastards", "Django Unchained" will have a separate plot from "Django". Apparently, "Django Unchained" will tell the story of a freed slave in pre-Civil War south, Django (who is not cast yet according to our knowledge) , who is mentored by a German bounty hunter (to be played by "Inglourious Basterds" Oscar-winner Christoph Waltz). The two men work some jobs together for awhile, but eventually Django's mind wonders back home, where he wife is still being held in perpetual forced labor on a plantation by her evil owner. Django and the bounty hunter decide to try and free his wife and take revenge on the plantation owner. The story sounds absolutely amazing, and with Tarantino behind camera, shot in a Spaghetti Western style, this is sure to be another all-time great. Unfortunately, there is no release date yet or even a planned start date for shooting, so we may have to wait a while longer. In the meantime though, if you would like to read more about this story, click here.